![Digital concept of data flow](https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/-/media/images/nrf/hero/digital-concept-flow-lights.jpg?w=265&revision=&revision=4611686018427387904&hash=1DBB7BD88F7D40EFEAB403B51B115D8F)
Publication
L’IA générative
L’intelligence artificielle (IA) soulève de nombreuses questions en matière de propriété intellectuelle (PI).
Royaume-Uni | Publication | août 2023
In Brass Trustees Ltd v Goldstone, the High Court has approved a decision in January 2023 by the Biwater DB scheme trustee to issue petitions to wind up the scheme's sponsoring employers. The scheme's deficit was estimated to be £28.3m as at December 31, 2022.
The scheme's employers had failed to meet their financial obligations to the scheme and the trustee concluded that there were signs they would not be able to do so in the future. The trustee was concerned that this would result in “scheme drift” - the proportionate level of funding worsening over time and “PPF drift” - an increase in the amount of compensation payable by the PPF. Under the trust deed and rules, the trustee could only wind up the scheme without the principal employer's agreement on the employer's insolvency, and thus sought the Court’s approval of its proposed winding up petitions.
The Court was satisfied that in arriving at its decision, the trustee had considered relevant factors including the financial circumstances of the scheme, the consequences for members if the scheme were to continue without winding up, and the trustee's duties to call in and protect scheme assets and to protect scheme members. In those circumstances, the Court was satisfied that the test for approval of the trustee’s winding-up petitions had been met.
The trustee had concluded that its decision would have been the same whether or not it took into account the existence of the PPF. The judge commented that the trustee could not have sought to take advantage of the existence of the PPF to justify failing to take steps to prevent the scheme deficit (and drift) increasing further.Publication
L’intelligence artificielle (IA) soulève de nombreuses questions en matière de propriété intellectuelle (PI).
Publication
Les systèmes d’IA générative sont entraînés au moyen de gros volumes de données, souvent tirées de sources du domaine public qui peuvent être protégées par le droit d’auteur ou d’autres droits de propriété intellectuelle, comme un droit sur les bases de données au Royaume-Uni et dans l’UE.
Publication
Une des inquiétudes quant à l’utilisation de déploiements publics de systèmes d’IA générative réside dans le fait que les requêtes saisies par les utilisateurs dans ces systèmes peuvent être réutilisées par le fournisseur ou le développeur sans restriction, ce qui pourrait vraisemblablement résulter en la perte de contrôle sur les renseignements confidentiels saisis dans ces systèmes et compromettre la confidentialité des renseignements en question
Abonnez-vous et restez à l’affût des nouvelles juridiques, informations et événements les plus récents...
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023